NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2087/2010

MANISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

28 Oct 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2087 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 01/04/2010 in Appeal No. 4/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka)

1. MANISH KUMAR R/o. C-6/342, Badan Street, Near Gole Park, Dhuri - 148024 Sangrur Punjab	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. No. 5, "Vachani Vista"' 1st and 2nd Floor, IV 'B' Block, 100 Feet Road, Koramangala Bangalore - 5600034 Karnataka 2. ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., (A) MR. I. MAHABALESWARAPPA, (CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR) #380, Ittina Center, 16th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 3. (B) MS. MONA ITTINA (DIRECTOR), ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. #380, Ittina Center, 16th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 4. (C). MR. VEERESH ITTINA (DIRECTOR0, ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. #380, Ittina Center, 16th Main, 3rd Block, Koramanagala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 5. (D). MR. MANU ITTINA (DIRECTOR), ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. #380, Ittina Center, 16th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 6. (E). MRS. I. NAGALMBIKE, W/O. I. MAHABALESWARAPPA, ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Ittina House, Kaikondrahalli, Carmelram Post Bangalore - 560035 Karnataka 7. 2, ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. #1054, 7th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 8. (A). MR. I. MAHABALESWARAPPA, (CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR), ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. #1054, 7th Main, 3rd Block, Kormangala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 9. (B). MS. MONA ITTINA (DIRECTOR), ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. #380, Ittina Center, 16th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 10. (C). MR. VEERESH ITTINA (DIRECTOR), ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. #380, Ittina Center, 16th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 11. (D). MR. MANU ITTINA (DIRECTOR), ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. #380, Ittina Center, 16th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore - 560034 Karnataka 12. (E). MRS. I. NAGALMBIKE, W/O. I. MAHABALESWARAPPA, ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Ittina House, Kaikondrahalli, Carmelram Post Bangalore - 560035 Karnataka	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 28 Oct 2010

ORDER

PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard the Petitioner who appears in person. The Respondents have been served including Respondent No.1(a) Mr. I. Mahabaleswarap, Chairman and Managing Director though notice sent to him on another address has not been served. The Respondents were informed that the matter may be finally disposed of at the admission stage. Vakaltnama has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.1(b),(d) and (e) but no one is present on their behalf or on behalf of other Respondents even on the second call. - 2- The Petitioner had filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Respondents in connection with the execution. This application was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 1.4.2010 which is subject matter of challenge in this revision. The State Commission has dismissed this application on the ground that recovery certificate has already been issued and the present application under Section 27 is not maintainable. The Petitioner has placed before us a judgement of this Commission in rem Chandra Varshney V/s. Murarilal Sharma and others IV (2007) CPJ 229 (NC) wherein it is held that there is no bar under the Act that execution applications cannot be simultaneously filed under Section 25 and 27 of the Act. It was held that application filed under Section 27 was maintainable. In view of this, order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the State Commission is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The State Commission shall now proceed to hear the application filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and pass orders in accordance with law. It need not be emphasized that in execution proceedings speedy remedy should be provided to the parties so that they can reap the benefit of the orders sought to be executed. The revision is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to cost. - 3- Copy of the order be given dasti to the Petitioner. The same shall also be forwarded by the Registry to the State Commission within a period of 10 days.

......................J

R.K. BATTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER